Consent Scenario

• define consent intro


  --> common law

  --> defence to some NFOs, but not any more serious than ABH (Brown) / not to murder (Pretty)

  --> heavily based on public policy
• 1) true consent


  = where V. understands the nature and quality of the activity they are agreeing to

  
  

  --> Richardson, consented to dentist

  --> Olugboja, consent and mere submission are not the same thing (put on statutory footing in Sexual Offences Act 2003)
• 2) informed consent


  = where V. makes a decision with full awareness of the risks and with the capacity to do so

  
  

  --> Dica, not aware of HIV, no consent

  --> Burrell, boys lacked the capacity

  --> Konzani, would V. have continued with activity if aware of the risks? no? then consent is not informed!

  
  

  --> Gillick, understood her advice to make an informed decision, led to 'gillick competence
• dos - implied consent


  --> V. is assumed to consent

  --> Collins v Wilcock, consent to everyday touchings

  --> Barnes, sports
• dos - mistaken belief


  --> a mistaken belief is still a defence for consent

  --> Aitkin, set on fire with genuine belief of consent

  --> Jones, consent for horseplay
• dos - medical procedures


  --> consent is presumed in life-saving situations

  --> Blaue, consent may be refused, religious reasons etc

  --> NHS Trust v Bland, removal of treatment is not murder